Libertarianism Declared Dead

[volatile]

I didn't say there was an absolute right, and I didn't say always.

Not did I say what volatile describes. My whole argument is based on the presumption that an intruder is willing to kill, which means that in the act of protecting your property, you are also protecting your life. Life comes first.

Classic example of exactly what I mean about freedom without responsibility. How can "life come first" if you're shooting some guy dead who wants to steal your TV?

What you actually meant was "my life comes first".

 

[Richard Masters]

Child labor is only a problem if there are alternatives? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about technology. It is because of advanced means of production that we can afford better lives for our children which do not involve back-breaking labor.

In some contexts, child-labor is still a necessity or desired, and your dogmatic assertion that it is a problem no matter what is quite short-sighted.

The point of a political platform is to address problems and, if the solutions to those problems do not exist, provide them. Your alternative seems to be to praise child labour as not even a problem, because it fulfils some kind of ideological niche that you need to wedge yourself into.

Not at all. You asked if there was any benefit from libertarianism for children who work. The answer I gave was relevant to that question only. It wasn't intended as an all-around promotion of child-labor whatsoever.

You asked earlier "Is it a problem that a twelve year old chooses to help his mother even though he is not required to". Yes, it's a damn problem. If your position is that child labour is to be praised as a "choice" because no alternatives are available rather than to condemn it and seek to introduce the alternatives that would render it unnecessary, then your position is disgraceful.

Like I said, you are inventing a position I do not hold; even though I have clarified it already.

 

[volatile]

I'm talking about technology. It is because of advanced means of production that we can afford better lives for our children which do not involve back-breaking labor.

In some contexts, child-labor is still a necessity or desired, and your dogmatic assertion that it is a problem no matter what is quite short-sighted.

Is is a problem no matter what. If conditions exist such that children "need" to work, then that is a problem and any credible political system should be seeking to address them.

It is not a "necessity" anywhere, and no politics should be complacent, or even as in your case seemingly happy, that it is.

Not at all. You asked if there was any benefit from libertarianism for children who work. The answer I gave was relevant to that question only. It wasn't intended as an all-around promotion of child-labor whatsoever.

Then the "benefit" you cite is rather obviously no benefit at all, is it? If under a libertarian system, the "benefit" is that a 12-year old can "choose" to work, then I condemn libertarianism with even more force than I have done thus far.

Like I said, you are inventing a position I do not hold; even though I have clarified it already.

You quite clearly posted a rhetorical question which indicated your support for a child "choosing" to work to support his family,and, moreover, cited this as a "benefit" of a libertarian system of politics. If you don't hold these views, it would probably not be wise to espouse them repeatedly.

 

[SaulOhio]

Classic example of exactly what I mean about freedom without responsibility. How can "life come first" if you're shooting some guy dead who wants to steal your TV?

Have you been paying attention? Did you read the part where I said the guy here in Cleveland only fired his gun when the intruder came at him?

What you actually meant was "my life comes first".

Most people who value life feel the same way, when it comes to my life or his. Chances are, if you were in the same situation as the homeowner in the news here in Cleveland, you would pull the trigger.

 

[Richard Masters]

External to the individual's own capacity to freely decide what is, and what is not, a proportional response.

As soon as you start setting limits on what is acceptable behaviour (especially behaviour, as I said, that the parties involved have otherwise consented to!), then you cease to be espousing a libertarian philosophy, as you are explicitly stating that an individual's freedom can -- indeed, should -- be subject to limits beyond those determined by the non-aggression principle.

Of course it can. What is non-libertarian about the non-aggression principle?

You are advocating an external - read, governmental - definition of proportional response that overrides the liberty of individuals. This directly contradicts a core tenet of libertarian thinking, as DrKitten pointed out to you some good while ago.

I was under the impression that the non-aggression principle was a core tenet of libertarianism. And actually, I do not recall DrKitten's thoughts on the subject. I'll have to look back.

Exactly. Acceptance of this, too, contradicts libertarian thinking.

What? the fact that there are exceptions to the rule, or that something can be subjective? Since when?

That individuals should be self-determining. You are advocating the granting of a substantial tranche of determination to an external authority.

This is a given. You can't have it any other way when there is one other person involved. By reading this narrowly into libertarianism, and ignoring the non-aggression principle you are creating a situation that no one including libertarians take seriously.

If a pre-determined "proportionality" regulation can supersede an individual's right to go beyond such a regulation (as in the contract hypothetical that started this line of discussion), then your thinking cannot be described as libertarian - you are apportioning your liberty to make autonomous decisions to a superlative, collective agency.

Clearly if you want an arbiter, you must cede partially to said arbiter. I don't see the controversy in that. libertarians do not foresee a world without judges or police.

Additionally, I do not see how you can formulate any set of rules without allowing for exceptions. Somehow you seem to think libertarianism does not allow exceptions or practical reconciliation between two core tenets.

Again, exactly. But this "weighing" is inconsistent with libertarianism, because the decision will infringe on one of the party's "freedoms" in quite a profound way.

Who thinks that killing an inoffensive individual is proportional to accidentally entering someone else's property?

Indeed, even the acceptance of this fact -- that an external authority is required to do this weighing in the first place -- is quite far from core libertarian principles of self-determination.

You keep ignoring the principle of non-aggression. Do you really think it was intended to be ignored? What you are suggesting is an illogical interpretation of libertarianism. Do you know anybody who advocates that interpretation where you are the sole judge of someone else's rights?

Obviously that cannot be the intent of libertarianism.

No, I'm saying you're not a libertarian. Rand critiqued the Libertarian party for not being libertarian enough; indeed, for being hypocritical. You're neither an Objectivist nor a libertarian, as it happens, because you explicity reject the underlying ideological pillars of libertarianism.

Self-Determinism? I only reject it to the extent that it conflicts with the other underlying "pillars" of libertarianism.

 

[Richard Masters]

Is is a problem no matter what. If conditions exist such that children "need" to work, then that is a problem and any credible political system should be seeking to address them.

How did you come up with this "universal" of morality? Was there any reasoning behind it?

It is not a "necessity" anywhere, and no politics should be complacent, or even as in your case seemingly happy, that it is.

Why do you insist on claiming that I am happy for child labor? I simply pointed out that not all situations are equal.

Then the "benefit" you cite is rather obviously no benefit at all, is it? If under a libertarian system, the "benefit" is that a 12-year old can "choose" to work, then I condemn libertarianism with even more force than I have done thus far.

It's not a benefit unless it is desired, obviously. Can you think of many situations where it is desired? I can't. So the benefits of libertarianism in this case are irrelevant; and condemning libertarianism over a choice that may benefit someone does not make any sense.

You quite clearly posted a rhetorical question which indicated your support for a child "choosing" to work to support his family,and, moreover, cited this as a "benefit" of a libertarian system of politics. If you don't hold these views, it would probably not be wise to espouse them repeatedly.

You completely misconstrued what I said, and continue to do so. Not to mention you still have not offered a logical reason why the choice to work is wrong.

 

[SaulOhio]

Is is a problem no matter what. If conditions exist such that children "need" to work, then that is a problem and any credible political system should be seeking to address them.

Nobody is saying it isn't a problem. The argument is about what the solution should be.

If the problem is the result of a lack of technology and not enough economic progress, then no amount of labor regulation wil change it.

Notice that a lot of third world countries have extensive, burdensome labor regulations, but the working conditions of the poor, as well as their wages, are stagnant. The laws are unenforceable, and they still have "sweat shops", because they can't afford anything better. This, despite all the regulations.
Bangladesh on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom:

Labor Freedom - Not Graded

Bangladesh's labor market is burdened by relatively inflexible employment regulations that hinder employment creation and productivity growth. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is low, but dismissing a redundant employee can be difficult. The difficulty of laying off workers creates a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise hire more people and grow.

Turkmenistan

Labor Freedom - 30%

Highly inflexible employment regulations hinder overall productivity growth and employment opportunities. The government provides the majority of jobs and mandates minimum wages.

Ethiopia:

Labor Freedom - 69.5%

Burdensome employment regulations hinder employment opportunities and productivity growth. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is very low, but dismissing a redundant employee is relatively costly. The difficulty of laying off a worker creates a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise hire more people and grow. Restrictions on the number of work hours are rigid.

Indonesia:

Labor Freedom - 57.5%

Restrictive employment regulations impede employment opportunities and productivity growth. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is moderate, but dismissing a redundant employee can be costly. The difficulty of laying off a worker creates a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise hire more people and grow.

These countries have inflexible and burdensome labor regulations, but they have not helped the working poor in those countries. The problem is that the workers NEED those jobs that badly because nothing better is available to them.

Yes, working conditions there suck. Deep, long, and hard. Something does need to be done about it. But more labor regulations won't help. What is needed is enough economic freedom to allow the economy to grow.

 

[volatile]

Of course it can. What is non-libertarian about the non-aggression principle?



I was under the impression that the non-aggression principle was a core tenet of libertarianism. And actually, I do not recall DrKitten's thoughts on the subject. I'll have to look back.

The non-aggression principle is a core tenet of libertarianism. And you support numerous policies that violate it.

What? the fact that there are exceptions to the rule, or that something can be subjective? Since when?

This is a given. You can't have it any other way when there is one other person involved. By reading this narrowly into libertarianism, and ignoring the non-aggression principle you are creating a situation that no one including libertarians take seriously.

Not at all. In fact, as has been pointed out to you, most libertarian theorists take precisely the stance you (rightly) object to. You are advocating that an external authority supersede an individual's right to self-determination, in direct conflict to core libertarian principles.

Clearly if you want an arbiter, you must cede partially to said arbiter. I don't see the controversy in that. libertarians do not foresee a world without judges or police.

No, but they do foresee a world where the presumed proportionality of a response cannot be overruled by an external authority, particularly when that response is related to contract terms.

The discussion, if you remember, started when Francesca proposed hypothetical contract where one party consented to the infliction of harm. If you are in favour of regulations to limit such contracts, then you are in favour of violating an individual's right to self-determination, and thus you reject libertarianism.

Additionally, I do not see how you can formulate any set of rules without allowing for exceptions. Somehow you seem to think libertarianism does not allow exceptions or practical reconciliation between two core tenets.

Because the exceptions you envisage are not exceptions. They cut to the very heart of what it is to be a libertarian.

Who thinks that killing an inoffensive individual is proportional to accidentally entering someone else's property?

SaulOhio in this very thread, actually. You only need skim gun rights threads in this forum to find plenty more.

You keep ignoring the principle of non-aggression. Do you really think it was intended to be ignored? What you are suggesting is an illogical interpretation of libertarianism. Do you know anybody who advocates that interpretation where you are the sole judge of someone else's rights?

You're not following, are you? If I remember correctly, this discussion of proportionality arose when you suggested that someone should not be able to consent to potentially harmful contract terms. Thus, the measures you advocate to prevent this interfere with an individual's right to judge his own rights, not someone elses' -- something which, as we keep saying, is entirely oppositional to libertarian thinking.

Self-Determinism? I only reject it to the extent that it conflicts with the other underlying "pillars" of libertarianism.

Errrmm... if you reject self-determinism, you reject libertarianism, as that is what libertarianism is. Which is what we've been trying to tell you.

 

[Richard Masters]

The non-aggression principle is a core tenet of libertarianism. And you support numerous policies that violate it.

Only as a last resort. If that makes me non-libertarian, so be it. But your interpretation is akin to the interpretations of race in the United States, such as the one-drop rule.

Not at all. In fact, as has been pointed out to you, most libertarian theorists take precisely the stance you (rightly) object to. You are advocating that an external authority supersede an individual's right to self-determination, in direct conflict to core libertarian principles.

It cannot be direct conflict with core libertarian principles if it agrees with the principles.

No, but they do foresee a world where the presumed proportionality of a response cannot be overruled by an external authority, particularly when that response is related to contract terms.

I didn't know you were referring to contract terms. A contract has to be interpreted; therefore, drafting a contract implies giving consent to have it interpreted.

The discussion, if you remember, started when Francesca proposed hypothetical contract where one party consented to the infliction of harm. If you are in favour of regulations to limit such contracts, then you are in favour of violating an individual's right to self-determination, and thus you reject libertarianism.

I am in favor of regulations to limit such contracts only if a party agrees to the contract while mentally-ill.

Because the exceptions you envisage are not exceptions. They cut to the very heart of what it is to be a libertarian.

Then maybe I'm unfamiliar with the libertarianism you speak of.

SaulOhio in this very thread, actually. You only need skim gun rights threads in this forum to find plenty more.
You're not following, are you? If I remember correctly, this discussion of proportionality arose when you suggested that someone should not be able to consent to potentially harmful contract terms. Thus, the measures you advocate to prevent this interfere with an individual's right to judge his own rights, not someone elses' -- something which, as we keep saying, is entirely oppositional to libertarian thinking.

I don't oppose this in the case of contract terms. Sorry if I missed the context.

Errrmm... if you reject self-determinism, you reject libertarianism, as that is what libertarianism is. Which is what we've been trying to tell you.

That's not all libertarianism is...

 

[Francesca R]

Keeping and bearing arms is not the same as killing someone over property.

Oh right, just as long as you don't exercise the option of firing live ammo. What a silly remark (yours).

I've mentioned over and over on political threads that the Libertarian party is not equal to libertarianism.

Rejected. When you write nonsense like that your stance disappears up it's own whatever.

 

[Darat]

If they are full of fallacies, PROVE IT, by actually arguing against the ideas I have expressed, instead of strawman arguments, and making ad-hominem attacks.

...snip...

I think you have this the wrong way around. When you make ad-hom attacks and strawman then all I will do is point out that you have made ad-hom attacks and strawmen, I am not going to waste anytime arguing against fallacies.

...snip...

The only answer you have given me to my claims is to tell me I am ignorant of the history. I have heard PLENTY about the history of working conditions in the 19th century. But none of it gives me any reason to believe that it was the laws that really made the difference.

...snip...

OK lets start again, what evidence leads you to form that conclusion?

...snip...

Then what HAVE you argued? Sounds to me, form what I even quoted, that you think that libertarians approve of the working conditions in the 19th century. That is how I interpret it when you say things like:

...snip...

Hmm... Good a place to start with would be looking up the word "humour" (or humor in an USA dictionary). And then reading the words I posted.

...snip...


Right back at you.

...snip..

But I have addressed what you have posted i.e. your strawmen, your ad-hom attacks and your apparent ignorance of historic fact.

...snip...
Again, same to you. You have not said ANYTHING about the cause and effect relationship between the laws and actual improvements in working conditions. That seems to be simply assumed. All you do is tell me to go back and read something on the subject, without even giving me any specific suggestions on what to read.

...snip...

As I said above - lets start from the beginning what evidence has lead you to the conclusion that legislation did not alter working conditions in the 19th century?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Would you deny a 12 year old the right to work to help his sick mother?

Yes because we have seen what happens when this is allowed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4181720#post4181720

 

[volatile]

I don't oppose this in the case of contract terms. Sorry if I missed the context.

[/quote]

It starts in Post 233 or thereabouts. This is where you came into the discussion, when asked whether a libertarian government would outlaw a specific type of contract.

So let's start again: do you agree that someone should be allowed to sign a contract the penalty for the breaking of which is the other party shooting you dead? Previously, you seemed to think not, but now that it has been pointed out to you that this is inconsistent with libertarianism, rather than reject the ideology you seem to actually now be rejecting the opinion. Am I correct?

Or, more prosaically, do you agree that someone should be allowed to consent to work in a factory that is inherently unsafe? If not, how can this be reconciled not only with libertarianism more generally, but with your statement "I don't oppose this in the case of contract terms".

 

[Richard Masters]

Oh right, just as long as you don't exercise the option of firing live ammo. What a silly remark (yours).

You might be surprised to learn this, but not all weapons fire ammunition.

Nevertheless, you are completely ignoring your own evidence and pretending otherwise.

Rejected. When you write nonsense like that your stance disappears up it's own whatever.

Nonsense like what? Could you explain what and why? Or is this how you finish every argument?

 

[Richard Masters]

Yes because we have seen what happens when this is allowed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4181720#post4181720

I'm not advocating that at all. That's a straw man argument.

 

[Richard Masters]

It starts in Post 233 or thereabouts. This is where you came into the discussion, when asked whether a libertarian government would outlaw a specific type of contract.

So let's start again: do you agree that someone should be allowed to sign a contract the penalty for the breaking of which is the other party shooting you dead?[/QUOTE]
If they were not coerced into signing, and they are mentally healthy otherwise, yes. (But personally, I think that's a stupid thing to do).

Or, more prosaically, do you agree that someone should be allowed to consent to work in a factory that is inherently unsafe?

Yes. Maybe said person is exceptionally skilled at that job; has only a year left to live; or is getting paid extremely well.

If not, how can this be reconciled not only with libertarianism more generally, but with your statement "I don't oppose this in the case of contract terms".

 

[volatile]

I'm not advocating that at all. That's a straw man argument.

Richard, you directly implied that child labour was not a problem, but a choice. I understand your reticence to stand behind the consequences of this opinion, but perhaps rather than pretend you didn't say it, or that the things Darat has described are not directly related to the policies you espouse, mabe you should stop trying to shoe-horn your social-democratic instincts into the libertarian identity label you seem to have erroneously selected for yourself...

You seem to want to be a libertarian (or at least to self-identify as one), even though you by instinct and by rationale reject its tenets and its consequences.

 

[Darat]

I can't speak with certainty as to how the common law has evolved in America on this point, but suspect that your statement, particularly the bolded bit, is wrong. I would be very surprised if there isn't a proportionality element to defending oneself from trespass much as there is in other common law countries - even when the common law has been codified into statute. In fact, the wikipedia article you linked to suggests that there is.

In other words, there is a good deal of liberalism in your example of a so-called libertarian doctrine.

Certainly in England, the granddaddy of "common law", recognises proportionality and "reasonable force". (See: http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html)

 

[Francesca R]

So let's start again: do you agree that someone should be allowed to sign a contract the penalty for the breaking of which is the other party shooting you dead?

If they were not coerced into signing, and they are mentally healthy otherwise, yes. (But personally, I think that's a stupid thing to do).

Then you have reversed your position from where you entered this thread, at least in respect of the part that concerned me. Thank you for confirming that.

 

[volatile]

If they were not coerced into signing, and they are mentally healthy otherwise, yes. (But personally, I think that's a stupid thing to do).

Really? Think about the consequences of such a belief system if allowed to propagate through society - if it were legally possible for those who were needy enough for a loan, or a job to sign such a contract.

Then tell me again with a straight face you think such a society would be a nice place to live.

Yes. Maybe said person is exceptionally skilled at that job; has only a year left to live; or is getting paid extremely well.

What about if they were poor and needed a job? Or just a regular human being and, given that there was no regulation to the contrary, all jobs were inherently unsafe?

As Darat pointed out, before health and safety laws, companies were unheathy and unsafe. What makes you think that in Libertopia, companies will magically choose to conform to safe working practices? Your politics shows a profound lack of understanding of history, politics, economics and human nature.